It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forced Drug & Alcohol Testing to get Unemployment Benefits

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by hhott
 

I wonder if they have to deal with this in China or Iran or North Korea???

Is this what freedom looks like?


I live in Illinois, USA ...

and here and now at this point in time i would trust Chinese & North Korean Firefighters more than i trust the leadership of Illinois.

yep, i truly believe i would rather have Chinas' and North Koreas' firefighters in charge rather than the feds.

sounds like a good plan to me!

or.....

how about we just rotate dictators from country to country instead of armies????

yep yep,
ET




posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
As I said earlier, this is going to be a very popular idea with a lot of Americans.

Anyone who has collected UI knows that it's based upon your own work history and how much you've contributed to the fund. Any argument about whether it's paid individually or upon a corporate level is moot because corporations obviously factor this into their pay scales to offset their liability. Collecting UI is NOT the same as being on welfare.

I find it troubling that the trend in America seems to have become a place where we are willing to inhibit the very idea of freedom in some irrational attempt to protect ourselves from any group of people who we see as not like ourselves. Unemployed people for the most part aren't degenerates, criminals, or undesirables. They're simply people who lost their job. Why subject countless people to undue scrutiny just to weed out a minority who engage in behaviors we don't agree with?

We've gotten into a very bad business, this notion that we can legislate morality. No good will come of it.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Is this what freedom looks like?


Yes.

If you don't like it, you are FREE to not collect unemployment benefits. If you don't want to be subjected to drug tests at your job, you're FREE to work a job that doesn't require them, or be self-employed.

Unemployment is INSURANCE. Just like any other insurance, when the claims go up, the rates go up. And who pays the rates? We all do, directly or indirectly! Companies raise prices, lower wages, cut off bonuses, cut benefits, lay off employees, or do whatever they need to do to cover the increased cost of higher unemployment insurance rates.

Claiming unemployment benefits while you are unable to work because you are high as a kite or drunk or have a hangover is no different than being on "Worker's Compensation" when you aren't really hurt. We all pay the price for the people who cheat the system, one way or another.

What's wrong with needing to be clean and sober in order to work? Depending on the job, I don't want people working while impaired. Do you want the guy driving the trash truck to be drunk? Well, do you? Do you want the electrician working on your power outage to be high? Do you want your kids' preschool teacher to be drunk or hungover?

So . . if it's reasonable to be required to be clean and sober to go to work, why is it unreasonable to be clean and sober during normal working hours in order to collect benefits from unemployment insurance? Insurance fraud of all types costs US citizens millions of dollars every year. Unemployment is just another type of insurance, and claiming for benefits when you are not ABLE and AVAILABLE for work is just another type of fraud.

They aren't talking about visiting your house on Sunday morning to make sure you weren't partying Saturday night. They want to you NOT be impaired by drugs or alcohol when you are job hunting and applying for jobs, and personally I think that's quite reasonable.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

As I said earlier, this is going to be a very popular idea with a lot of Americans.


don't confuse popular with what is right.
americans are generally pretty stupid and in love, neigh .. addicted to ignorance.

not one american can explain where 1/4th their economy went to in the last 10 years....

not one american can tell you the number of laws required to comply with the MANDATORY expectations of their own society..

ignorance of the law is no excuse....

americans pay others to make more laws while the others they pay can't tell you how many laws there are, let alone what they are....

taxes = more laws
more taxes = more laws
more laws = more taxes

let's call it "FREEDOM" and force it onto every citizen on the planet!!!!


Marketting techniques

Global War On Terror IS NOT WWIII

global does not mean world??



sorry earth, you seem to be suffering from .... someone's Civil War...

they come in peace .... or they come in pieces ... but they come,
ET



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 


I get what you are saying...I really do. But, it is my government too, and I do not want them in the business of forking over cash to do drug testing on everyone who is applying for benefits. I do not think the role of the government should be to have law abiding citizens submit to searches and seizures in order to pay their bills, or feed their family. Especially given that I can name a handful of employers that fire people for rule violations that they more or less made up to deny unemployment benefits. They do this to keep their UI benefit rate low as it increases the more people withdraw funds from the employers account.

Unless the government is willing to require that all employers must prove a rule violation did in fact occur and that they fire people for those reasons, then policing employees collecting UI benefits does little to increase the pile of cash reserve available for benefits.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Actually, they DO do that. I've been fired twice and both employers tried to deny me benefits. But, at least in Oklahoma, the employer has to have sufficient evidence to prove "willful misconduct" in order to deny benefits. I received benefits both times.

Besides, as I said before, they aren't going to go around testing everyone who is receiving unemployment. They want the law so that they will be able to have companies report failed drug tests to the state so that people who did not get a job they might otherwise have gotten because they failed a drug test can be denied benefits.

How can I be the only one who *gets* what they are trying to accomplish??



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SUICIDEHK45
I think that this is a good thing. I don't want somebody spending my hard earned money on drugs while they are on unemployment.


Although I understand your feelings, you are misunderstanding unemployment insurance.

Unemployment Insurance is in fact insurance. It is not Welfare. They take part of your pay that goes into a shared risk fund just like any other insurance does.

Imagine if you will, you have Health Insurance. You break your arm and leg in a traffic accident. The insurance company refuses to pay because in a blood test it shows you have smoked some weed, sometime in the last 90 days.

Also this insurance is mandatory. You can not opt out as an employee and buy unemployment insurance somewhere else.

Now you work for 10 years, paying in your unemployment insurance payments as they are taken before you receive your pay. You are layed off because the company goes broke. Then you are denied the insurance payments you have already payed for?

If this was welfare, I'd agree. In this case though it is legalized fraud. Forced, legalized fraud.

I am anti-drugs myself, but I'm not irrational enough to say they should take a persons insurance away, even though they have paid for it in full, because of a moral issue. That is the action of a Dictatorial Government that should scare the hell out of all of us.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 


Yes, they do that like you said. But, the trick is they can fight it every time and usually do. There is no penalty for them to fight every case. Most employees do in fact give up fighting during good times...and struggle to just find another job. Well, this is bad times and now people are fighting them tooth and nail.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hhott
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Besides, as I said before, they aren't going to go around testing everyone who is receiving unemployment. They want the law so that they will be able to have companies report failed drug tests to the state so that people who did not get a job they might otherwise have gotten because they failed a drug test can be denied benefits.

How can I be the only one who *gets* what they are trying to accomplish??





Where are you reading that?

To quote the article

_______________________

Orrin Hatch's amendment, if adopted, would require future recipients of unemployment benefits to pass a drug and alcohol test in order to claim their weekly unemployment check. Hatch maintains that America has a drug problem and that requiring the unemployed to endure drug and alcohol testing would save the country money, force those with a drug problem to get help, force a good number of the unemployed to become less addicted to public assistance, and could even reduce the national deficit. The amendment might just be the most insulting piece of legislation to come along in quite a while.

_________________________

The first sentence certainly doesn't say that. I guess if you are the only one *getting it* you must read between the lines well?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 


That I don't agree with. If you were fired, you should not have received benefits. You simply don't get fired multiple times if you are doing the job you are being paid to do. Employers don't take firings lightly. They almost always have a valid reason.

You see to an employer, it is cheaper to rehabilitate an experienced employee than it is to train a new one. That means the employee has done something bad enough to warrant firing multiple times before they were fired in almost all cases.

All employees claim they are innocent after they are fired. They almost always lie. It did not used to be that way. People used to have good work ethics. Then our horrible schools and never at home Parents turned out a couple of generations of new workers who think the world owes them a living. It is sad mainly for the young people. They don't even understand why their actions justify the firing. They think they are still in school or at home where they must be forgiven. I blame the schools and the parents fully.

I'm hiring right now in fact. So far, I've yet to receive a single good resume. They are all put together like a 10 year old created them. Full of typo's and errors. Full of words used out of context. Completely lacking in the information I need to determine if they are qualified. They should all go punch their teachers square in the face for failing them so miserably. 12 in my inbox this morning. 12 deleted this morning. 12 people with at least a Bachelors Degree who can not complete the initial task of communicating to me why they are qualified for the position's.

It must be a real nightmare for those so lazy and inept they did not even bother to finish High School or get some sort of a Degree or Certificate. How could any employer give a damn about people that lazy. They make terrible workers. Their only hope is a job getting orders wrong in a Drive Up Window. In a country with government guaranteed loans, grants and all manner of ways to get a free education, how does anyone explain the large numbers of illiterates on our streets? Parents I guess. Bad Parents.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


Hatch is a horses ass. Always has been a lets force my morals on everyone else kind of guy. The only time a worker should be let go is if they do not do their job or they are disruptive or argumentative in the workplace. Nobody who paid into this Insurance should ever be denied for any reason other than they were fired for reason.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Blaine, good post. You definitely understand the system unlike several other posters in this thread. But .. there's one part of the issue you're missing.

You can't opt out of having car insurance either (yes, I know, you can choose your insurance company .. but hey, you can choose your employer too!). You know as well as I do that car insurance rates go up when claims go up. Even when it's something like an unusual number of hail storms that were no one's fault .. everyone's rates go up! Knowing that, how do you feel about people who make fraudulent car insurance claims? Collectively, they make YOU have to pay more for your car insurance.

Unemployment insurance is supposed to be temporary, and it's supposed to cover you while you're actually trying to find another job and can't, not while you're sitting on your duff for six months enjoying the "vacation." Don't you see that people getting unemployment benefits while they aren't really available for work is insurance fraud just like the guy who claims "whiplash" when he isn't really hurt?
 

@GreenBicMan:

Well .. hmm.. maybe I'm giving them too much credit for not being total idiots. If they really mean to test everyone, just the logistics would be a nightmare. Oklahoma doesn't even issue paper checks any more, you get a debit card or direct deposit. And you file your claim online or by telephone. Where would you have to go to get tested? By whom? How often? The idea is so utterly ridiculous I didn't really think they could possibly be considering doing THAT. For starters it would cost way more money than it could possibly save...

 

@Blaine (reply to 2nd post):

How about you don't judge people and situations before you know what the heck you're talking about? After 5 1/2 years at the first job, they fired me so they could hire someone's brother. Oklahoma is an at-will state and they don't have to have a reason to fire you.

After many months of job hunting, I tried to go to work for a PI. After I'd been there a couple of weeks he tried to make me do something using the official SSA website that happens to be a federal crime and I refused. He fired me for "not following directions."

Care to rethink your "valid reasons" b.s.?



On the other hand, I wish more people thought like you do. My resume is well-written, clearly organized, has no mistakes, and clearly lists my qualifications and skills in an easy to read (or skim) format. But I can't get a decent job to save my life! There are PHDs out here taking entry level positions and experienced electricians working at the convenience stores. It's a nightmare!



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 


That is right, and I am so glad you didn't comply with the illegal directives. I can not even tell you how many times I have been asked to break the law by my employers. Other people seem to do it without issue, including lying to the unemployment board to stop people from claiming benefits. Been there done that. 12 years in corporate management I have seen it all...and it is time these sleazy employers that make their dimes off the backs of illegal methods get their dose.

I think more employees need to start exposing employers instead about worrying about their job. I am sure there are business owners that follow the laws and try not to break them...but a majority of employers I have worked for will break the law whenever they feel like it will make them money.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
You are do totally ignorant. Unemployment insurance is not funded by tax dollars. It is funded by unemployment insurance payments made by everyone whether they use drugs or not. This is just another way for big brother to assert more control.


Originally posted by SUICIDEHK45
I think that this is a good thing. I don't want somebody spending my hard earned money on drugs while they are on unemployment.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 


Dude, you're just not getting it.

Economically speaking, yes it's good policy and it trims fat from budgets.
So does executing the homeless and reinstating slave labor.
That doesn't make it less of a crime against our personal liberties.
It doesn't make it any less of a slippery slope.

Will it keep UI from collapsing?? No. Why? Because that money isn't just sitting in an account drawing interest. The government is spending that money as soon as it comes in. Now that the fund is actually needed to do the job it was originally created for, the government is trying to find a way to weasel out of paying.

We're already just starting to see how much this new health care will be like this. There will be nothing done in the name of public well being. It will be all about increasing the bottom line and cutting costs.

When they tell you what you can and cannot eat, that you have to work out so many hours a week, and take periodic health screenings, will you use the same logic you use here to agree with it? Because your argument is just as valid for either case.

Edit:
Just to add too.. Our unemployment rate is close to 25% where I live. I'm sure none of the ones looking for jobs here are "sitting on their butts." To make an assumption like that is an insult and just shows a lack of understanding about how bad it is in certain parts of this country.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by PayMeh]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pacific_waters
 


Actually you are the ignorant one. Every business with employees is subject to two unemployment taxes more commonly known as FUTA and SUTA (federal unemployment tax act and state unemployment tax act). It is a specific tax levied against businesses based on number of employees, income, and previous claims from employees of the company. In a few states employees must pay a tax on a small percentage of their earnings (Alaska I believe is one). It is not an insurance thing. That is a completely false statement. I am a tax preparer in the state of Wisconsin. It is my job to know these things.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 


I should have been clearer. For that I'm am sorry.

What I was trying to point out is that in MOST cases the employee challenging the firing is lying. That does not mean you were. My choice of words could have been better.

The last person who did that to me, had 14 jobs in two years and was fired from all of them. I won the ruling but still, it was a problem I've seen before. He lied to me on the application as well. Claimed he was experienced, when in fact he had worked for three days and was fired from that job.

Immediately afterward he started calling me three or four times a day, telling me I'd better look out because he was going to get even with me. Not as bad as the man I fired for burglarizing my office who called and threatened to murder me after I proved he did it, but trouble all the same.

You see it is hard for us Employers also. We hire based on words that may or may not be true. We are shackled as to how far we can go to determine if the application is a lie or not. Heck, I can't even ask a persons age.

It's all but impossible to confirm whats on applications now. When we contact previous employers they won't even return calls out of fear of a law suit if they tell us the truth. So they just respectfully decline to rate the persons performance. I no longer give reference letters either. For a similar reason. I do it off the record in private when I can.

One lying employee can now destroy a business. Decades of sacrifice and hard work can go down over one lie, by one bad employee.

It's even worse now because the first to be laid off in hard times are the bottom of the barrel. Sounds bad, but it's true all the same. My Ad's right now say clearly experience is required and yet many who apply have zero qualifications.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 


So you're advocating they test for alcohol and drugs in your system before they payout on income tax returns? Or is that different because it applies to you?

If it's a tax, then there's no expectation of reimbursement, ever, unless you over pay.

It's not a tax, it's not a social program, it's an insurance policy.

They just can't call it that because then they get into the semantics of the government running a for profit business.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
well hello ats people. I have been reading and following ats since 2005. And was a member with a different name. never posted much, just read for information. Thought i might mention all this before i get flamed for what i am about to say because it will look like my "first" post.

I am a mailman. I see first hand the people that are hurting from the economy. AND, i also see the people that are gaming the system. I will agree with several of the above posters. Unemployed persons are not the big problem. I see that. The people I believe that need to be drug tested are the people on government assistance, ie welfare. I can not tell you the things I have seen. People that have NO intention of working, and telling people of the fact. Going to "doctors" to get a "ailment". Waiting to get thier "paycheck" on the first and/or third of the month. All while smoking a cigarette, and sometimes having a "drink". You name it, I have probably seen it. I have seen both good and bad people. I have meet and forged friendships with people that "live" on the system. Some of the people that are on the welfare system have no other choice. The world has no place for them. They fell between the cracks somewhere in life. Or they have some other event that has befallen them in thier life sometime in the past and has lead them to a life even they dont want to live. They need more help than what they are getting, imho. But, money only goes so far.
I guess I will get to the point. The people I believe that should be subjected to a random drug screen are the people making a living by staying on the welfare system. These are the people that are gaming the system. I have seen them sitting outside the welfare office, smoking a cigarette, rubbing lotion on their new tattoo. Seen people that can't walk right because of a bad back, lift heavy objects, move furniture from one house to another, and out walk me to the bank when i bring thier check. Girls that plan on having babies for a living and staying in government housing because thats where mom and grandma live. Im not saying all these people are bad or using drugs. What i am saying is the practice of random drug testing employees has been in use for years. I am subject to it, police, fire, airlines...you name a job field, they are testing. I think that if the working man is tested, so should the person on welfare. It only makes sense. If you are getting tattoos, smoking/drinking, you probably don't need to be on welfare. Or at best, there is something askew going on. My two cents on the debate.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


quit smoking pot and
you got nothing
to worry about




top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join